UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1886

COLLINS KWAKWAH AGYARE,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: May 7, 2010 Decided: June 1, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, 

Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney 

General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director, Judith R. 

O’Sullivan, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Collins Kwakwah Agyare, a native and citizen of Ghana, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration 

judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of 

removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (2006). We dismiss the 

petition for review.

An alien is eligible for cancellation of removal as a 

battered spouse if the alien: (1) has been battered or 

subjected to extreme cruelty in the United States by a spouse or 

parent who is a United States citizen or lawful permanent 

resident; (2) has been continuously physically present in the 

United States for at least three years; (3) has been a person of 

good moral character during such period; (4) is not inadmissible 

due to the commission of specified crimes; and (5) establishes 

that removal would result in extreme hardship to the alien, his 

child, or to his parent. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2) (2006); 

Stephanovic v. Filip, 554 F.3d 673, 677 n.4 (7th Cir. 2009).

In an appeal of an administrative decision to grant or 

deny cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), this 

court has jurisdiction only over constitutional claims and 

questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D) (2006); see

Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 479-80 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding 

that, under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D), court has no jurisdiction 
3

over any aspects of denial of relief under § 1229b except 

constitutional claims or questions of law); Obioha v. Gonzales, 

431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005) (“It is quite clear that the 

gatekeeper provision bars our jurisdiction to review a decision 

of the B[oard] to actually deny a petition for cancellation of 

removal or the other enumerated forms of discretionary 

relief.”). Whether an alien has proved “exceptional and extreme 

hardship” under § 1229b is not a constitutional claim or 

question of law. Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 37-40 

(2d Cir. 2008); Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 

1221-22 (11th Cir. 2006); Martinez-Maldonado v. Gonzales, 437 

F.3d 679, 682 (7th Cir. 2006); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 

F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005). In fact, it is the precise 

discretionary decision that Congress has shielded from review. 

Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir. 

2007); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir. 

2006). 

Therefore, we dismiss the petition for review from the 

Board’s order finding Agyare failed to show his removal would 

cause an extreme hardship to himself or family. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED